9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Invocation of inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code. 3. Availability of alternative legal remedies. 4. Application of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an order discharging the respondent from offences under the Custom Act and the Import and Export (Control) Act. The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable under S. 482 as the petitioner failed to file a revision within the specified limitation period. Citing authorities, it was emphasized that inherent powers should be sparingly exercised when specific remedies are available under the law. The petitioner's failure to utilize the revisional remedy within the prescribed time barred the invocation of inherent jurisdiction. 2. The respondent contended that the High Court's inherent powers under S. 482 should not be invoked when specific remedies are provided by the statute. Reference was made to cases highlighting the need to prevent abuse of the legal process and to secure the ends of justice. The court reiterated that inherent powers are to be used sparingly and only when no other remedy is available. The petitioner's failure to file a revision petition within the limitation period precluded the exercise of inherent powers. 3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the label of the petition was immaterial, and the High Court could examine the matter using its inherent powers. However, it was pointed out that treating the petition as a revision would be time-barred. No exceptional circumstances were presented to justify the invocation of inherent powers when an alternative legal remedy was available. The court emphasized that inherent powers should not encroach upon specific provisions of the law. 4. The petitioner sought support from Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent cited a case emphasizing that the High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 227 when adequate alternative legal remedies exist. The court reiterated that Article 227 jurisdiction is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised, especially when alternative legal remedies have not been pursued. Since the petitioner failed to avail the revision remedy within the prescribed time, the court found no grounds to invoke Article 227. In conclusion, the petition was dismissed based on the failure to avail of the available legal remedies within the specified time limits. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and not invoking inherent powers when specific statutory remedies exist.
|
